Jeyasegaram David v Ban Song Long David: Defamation Claim over 'Playing to the Gallery' Remark

Jeyasegaram David, President and CEO of SIAS, sued Ban Song Long David, a director of NatSteel, for defamation over the statement 'playing to the gallery' published in The Business Times. The High Court of Singapore, presided over by Tay Yong Kwang J, dismissed the claim, finding that the statement was not defamatory and that the defenses of justification, qualified privilege, and fair comment were applicable. The court held that the statement did not injure David's character or reputation.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Claim dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Defamation suit by Jeyasegaram David against Ban Song Long David dismissed. The court found the statement 'playing to the gallery' not defamatory.

1.7 Decision Date

30 September 2004

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Ban Song Long David	Defendant	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Won	Davinder Singh of Drew and Napier LLC Adrian Tan of Drew and Napier LLC Cheryl Tan of Drew and Napier LLC Hri Kumar of Drew and Napier LLC Chelsia Wong of Drew and Napier LLC
Jeyasegaram David (alias David Gerald Jeyasegaram)	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim dismissed	Lost	Lee Eng Beng of Rajah and Tann Andre Yeap of Rajah and Tann Chan Hoe of Rajah and Tann

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Tay Yong Kwang	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Davinder Singh	Drew and Napier LLC
Adrian Tan	Drew and Napier LLC
Cheryl Tan	Drew and Napier LLC
Hri Kumar	Drew and Napier LLC
Chelsia Wong	Drew and Napier LLC
Lee Eng Beng	Rajah and Tann
Andre Yeap	Rajah and Tann
Chan Hoe	Rajah and Tann

4. Facts

The plaintiff is the President and CEO of SIAS.
The defendant is a director with a shareholding interest in 98 Holdings Pte Ltd.
98 Holdings owns or controls some 51.23% of the share capital of NatSteel Ltd.
The allegedly defamatory words were: Mr Ban, however, feels that Mr Gerald is “playing to the gallery.”
The words were published in both the print and on-line editions of The Business Times on 4 June 2003.
The plaintiff claimed the words caused him considerable distress and injured his dignity, character and reputation.
The defendant submitted that there was no case to answer.

5. Formal Citations

Jeyasegaram David (alias David Gerald Jeyasegaram) v Ban Song Long David, Suit 898/2003, [2004] SGHC 225

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2003-01-01	Article by Lee Han Shih published in BT regarding NatSteel's results.
2003-01-07	SIAS wrote to the President of NatSteel calling for the release of the results for the last two quarters of 2002.
2003-01-08	NatSteel replied to SIAS regarding the release of results.
2003-01-10	98 Holdings obtained enough acceptances to bring its shareholding in NatSteel to above 50%.
2003-01-14	Plaintiff assured Oei Hong Leong that SIAS was happy to champion issues relating to minority shareholders’ rights.
2003-01-15	Sanion issued a press release stating that it was a “stayer” and did not intend to accept the offer by 98 Holdings.
2003-01-24	Closing date of the offer by 98 Holdings.
2003-03-16	NatSteel announced its full year results for 2002.
2003-05-02	NatSteel board issued a circular to the shareholders to convene an extraordinary general meeting.
2003-05-14	Plaintiff wrote to the NatSteel board to express SIAS’s concerns as to the implications of the “unnecessary linkage between the resolutions”.
2003-05-19	NatSteel board released an announcement seeking to justify the linkage.
2003-05-19	Plaintiff issued a press statement in his capacity as President and Chief Executive Officer of SIAS.
2003-05-22	Sanion issued a press release asking that the linkage of the resolutions be removed.
2003-05-26	Plaintiff requested Ang Kong Hua to allow three of SIAS’s committee members to attend the EGM as observers.
2003-05-28	NatSteel held its EGM.
2003-05-30	Plaintiff sent an e-mail to Ang Kong Hua of NatSteel to ask if they could explore a solution together.
2003-06-01	Ang Kong Hua replied to plaintiff's email.
2003-06-02	Plaintiff followed up with another e-mail to ask if the board was keen to meet him.
2003-06-03	Plaintiff spoke to the reporter and gave the SIAS statement.
2003-06-04	Adjourned EGM held by NatSteel.
2003-06-04	The Business Times published the article with the allegedly defamatory words.
2003-07-31	Another EGM was held by NatSteel.
2003-08-25	Plaintiff's solicitors sent a letter of demand to the defendant.
2003-09-25	Defendant filed his Defence.
2004-10-01	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Defamation
- Outcome: The court held that the words 'playing to the gallery' were not defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Whether statement defamatory in its natural and ordinary meaning
  - Test for determining natural and ordinary meaning of words
- Related Cases:
  - [1999] 4 SLR 529
Fair Comment
- Outcome: The court held that the defence of fair comment was made out.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Whether defence of fair comment made out
  - Factors to consider
- Related Cases:
  - [1999] 1 SLR 94
Justification
- Outcome: The court held that the defence of justification was made out.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Whether defence of justification made out
  - Factors to consider
- Related Cases:
  - [1995] 3 SLR 590
Qualified Privilege
- Outcome: The court held that the defence of qualified privilege was made out.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Whether defence of qualified privilege made out
  - Factors to consider
- Related Cases:
  - [1917] AC 309

8. Remedies Sought

Damages
Retraction of statement
Apology
Legal costs

9. Cause of Actions

Defamation

10. Practice Areas

Defamation Litigation

11. Industries

Securities
Steel

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Microsoft Corporation v SM Summit Holdings Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 4 SLR 529	Singapore	Cited for the principles applicable in determining the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of in a defamation action.
Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Goh Chok Tong	N/A	Yes	[1984–1985] SLR 516	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court decides what meaning the words would have conveyed to an ordinary, reasonable person.
Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew	N/A	Yes	[1992] 2 SLR 310	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court decides what meaning the words would have conveyed to an ordinary, reasonable person.
Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin	N/A	Yes	[1998] 1 SLR 547	Singapore	Cited by the plaintiff's counsel in submitting that a similar phrase “directed at the gallery” was used to describe defence counsel’s objectionable conduct in cross-examination. The court distinguished this case.
Sin Heak Hin Pte Ltd v Yuasa Battery Singapore Co Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1995] 3 SLR 590	Singapore	Cited for the principle that to establish the defence of justification, a defendant must prove that the defamatory imputation is true.
Aaron v Cheong Yip Seng	N/A	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR 623	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it suffices that the substance or the gist of the libel has been justified.
Adam v Ward	N/A	Yes	[1917] AC 309	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the defence of qualified privilege is available where the person who makes a communication has an interest or a duty to make it to the person to whom it is made, and the person to whom it is made has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it.
Chen Cheng v Central Christian Church	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 1 SLR 94	Singapore	Cited for the requirements to succeed in a defence of fair comment.
Cheng Albert v Tse Wai Chun Paul	Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong	Yes	[2000] 4 HKC 1	Hong Kong	Cited for the discussion on malice in the context of fair comment.
Horrocks v Lowe	N/A	Yes	[1975] AC 135	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that even a positive belief in the truth of what is published on a privileged occasion may not suffice to negative express malice.
Silkin v Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1958] 1 WLR 743	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that every allowance or latitude must be given for any prejudice and exaggeration entertained by such a fair-minded person.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Defamation
Playing to the gallery
SIAS
NatSteel
98 Holdings
Minority shareholders
Qualified privilege
Fair comment
Justification
EGM
Special dividend
M&A resolution
Scrip dividend resolution

15.2 Keywords

Defamation
Singapore
SIAS
NatSteel
Playing to the gallery
Shareholders
Corporate governance

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Defamation	95
Commercial Disputes	30
Company Law	25

16. Subjects

Defamation
Tort
Corporate Governance
Shareholder Rights